This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This discussion was moved from User talk:Cantus:
Hi, Cantus! I am a little stumped with what "Sibír'" means. It surely isn't a transliteration, and you do not mention what language this is in. Can you satisfy my curiosity, please? Also, why did you remove the accent mark from the Russian version?-- Ëzhiki 15:42, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
OK, now please tell me what was wrong with the Transliteration of Russian into English link that you kindly removed from the article's intro?-- Ëzhiki 22:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Will you please stop removing bits and pieces from this article? Or at least try to explain why you are doing it.-- Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:15, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm aiming for consistency here. You would have to change ALL pages with cyrilic text in it. They're all in this same format. Stop this, Ëzhiki. -- Cantus 02:59, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
I second the position of User:Ezhiki on this issue.
There is no way to imitate Russian palatalization in English. Similar problems exist in opposite direction. E.g., in Russian, both 'v' and 'w' are rendered by Ve (Cyrillic), but no one tears his hairs off his head to invent a way to distinguish them despite the fact that 'v' and 'w' sometimes bring semantic diference not less important than "Р" vs. "РЬ" (e.g., cover<-> cower).
My suggestion is to forget the apostrophe but for certain "special" cases, such as Rus' goremychnaya. Mikkalai 03:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is Library of Congress Slavic Transliteration and three other commonly used ones. I am wondering why no one took troubles to report these here.
My brief search shows it is common to use prime for soft sign and double prime for hard sign.
Mikkalai 21:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am wondering why this discussion is here and not at the Transliteration of Russian into English page. I am copying it there. Mikkalai 21:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IMO LOC did not very good job for Cyrillic. E.g., they suggest to use prime for soft sign in Belarussian language, obviously oblivious to the fact that it is already in use. Furthermore, we cannot use their way for hard sign, because two primes are of special meaning in wikipedia (we could have used the double quote mark, but this way lead to the same objections that were taken by LOC into an account). Not to say that LOC makes use of diacritics two letter wide. I guess, the initial design was for pencil marks on books bought for the library abroad. Mikkalai 22:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
First of all, thanks to Mikkalai for his initial proposal to compile this article and for his eventual return to its discussion. I also believe that this article should cover all of the existing transliteration systems, and give arecommendation as to which one of them should preferrably be used across the Wikipedia. I just never got to adding that information as I keep being distracted by other projects. Or well, no one ever said it's gonna be easy...
Now, to the point. Here are the problems with the existing system that are pretty much obvious:
I'll try to go through them one by one.
Hard/soft signs. I tend to agree with Mikkalai that these signs should not be included in the transliterated variant (and, Cantus, yes, I do of course know the apostrophes are used in several systems, you just needed to look at this article more closely—you would see they are there), except when they are absolutely crucial for the meaning of the word (I can't think of any example, though), or when they have conventionally been used (no example, again), or when they help clarify an issue (e.g., Rus'). The article currently suggests using letter "y" when soft/hard sign is followed by a letter other than "е", but that definitely needs reworking ("Podyyarsky" for "Подъярский" looks pretty unwieldy and counter-intuitive, even though "Ilyinsky" for "Ильинский" is probably fine). This is one area where suggestions are very welcome.
"-Ый/-ий" endings.
More thought should be put into this entry. Let me start from the remark that 'siny' for 'синий' is baaad. I suggest ий -> iy and ый -> yi unless it is in proper names with a tradition of spelling.
Mikkalai 22:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I still am curious why "siny" for "синий" looks bad (even though I don't necessarily disagree with this notion). Maybe it's because the word is too short? "Sinenky" for "синенький" doesn't look as bad, does it? Anyway, this can be improved, but I am strongly against using "-iy" for "-ий" and "-yi" for "-ый". This, to me, would overly complicate an already convoluted system—you would have to explain why "й" should be transliterated as "y" in one case and as "i" in another. My counterproposal would be to leave "-ый" alone (i.e., use "y"), and use simple "i" for "-ий" (i.e, "синий" will become "sini"). This will at least add more consistency to the system, although it is still not as simple as I'd like it to be. It is also worth mentioning that not all "-ий" endings are created equal. Adjectives are one thing (here goes "siny/sini/siniy" again), but nouns can also have this ending (e.g., "Vo dvore on posadil paru akatsiy"). I'd think this one has to be an "-iy", no matter what we decide on the adjectives, but if I am overlooking something, please let me know.
Letter ё. Russian Wikipedia made the use of this letter mandatory in Russian texts (so no more "полет"s where a "полёт" should be). One can argue about it a lot (and they do), but to me this is a very good practice which clarifies a lot of proper names, when it is entirely non-obvious which of the two letters should be used (Краснозна́менск or Краснознамёнск? I still don't know!). From the transliteration standpoint, using "yo" for "ё" makes more sense than using either "ë" or "yë", because "yo" would be in the same row as "ya" and "yu".
"Ы" vs. "й". Currently the article proposes using "y" for both of these letters. Not good. But as far as the alternatives go, they are not any better. "J" for "й" seems good until people start pronouncing it as "j" in "jam"—this is a good variant for languages that don't use "j" as a dyphthong, though. Not true for English. Using "y" for the soft/hard signs in some cases does not help getting rid of the confusion either. I've been thinking of this problem quite a lot, but I still don't seem to come up with a good solution, so any comments would be very welcome. Otherwise, we'd have to go with the flow, which is a shame for intelligent people who contribute to this fine encyclopedia. -- Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:24, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I would have suggested keeping the SAMPA. However, do what you like, it makes no difference. Just stay away from the international-slavicist transliteration with the haceks and what not: it's more phonemic, rather than phonetic. But it makes no real difference. Just one last suggestion: if a rabid nationalist appears, RUN. A. Shetsen 06:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just FUI: in Unicode
Mikkalai 03:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thought someone might find this useful:
static function Russ2Asc ($str) { $str = preg_replace('/(?<!Б|б|В|в|Г|г|Д|д|Ж|ж|З|з|Й|й|К|к|Л|л|М|м|Н|н|П|п|Р|р|С|с|Т|т|Ф|ф|Х|х|Ц|ц|Ч|ч|Ш|ш|Щ|щ)(Е|е)/','ye',$str); $str = preg_replace('/(ъ|ь)(?=(А|а|О|о|У|у|Ы|ы|Э|э|Я|я|Ё|ё|Ю|ю|И|и))/','y',$str); $str = preg_replace('/(И|и|Ы|ы)(Й|й)(?=\s|\.|;|:|!|\?|\Z)/','y',$str); $str = str_replace(array('А','а'),'a',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Б','б'),'b',$str); $str = str_replace(array('В','в'),'v',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Г','г'),'g',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Д','д'),'d',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Е','е'),'e',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ё','ё'),'yo',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ж','ж'),'zh',$str); $str = str_replace(array('З','з'),'z',$str); $str = str_replace(array('И','и'),'i',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Й','й'),'y',$str); $str = str_replace(array('К','к'),'k',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Л','л'),'l',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Э','э'),'e',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ю','ю'),'yu',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Я','я'),'ya',$str); $str = str_replace(array('М','м'),'m',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Н','н'),'n',$str); $str = str_replace(array('О','о'),'o',$str); $str = str_replace(array('П','п'),'p',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Р','р'),'r',$str); $str = str_replace(array('С','с'),'s',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Т','т'),'t',$str); $str = str_replace(array('У','у'),'u',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ф','ф'),'f',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Х','х'),'kh',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ц','ц'),'ts',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ч','ч'),'ch',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ш','ш'),'sh',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Щ','щ'),'shch',$str); $str = str_replace(array('ъ','ь'),"",$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ы','ы'),'y',$str); return $str; }
Note that it doesn't take into account any special cases, names etc. porge 06:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
I'm rewriting the heading and intro of this section to comply with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. What's described here isn't really transliteration. It's an attempt to codify the gamut of informal phonetic transcriptions; that's why so many exceptions and special cases are required.
It may be possible to simplify the rules if it's treated as a phonetic or phonemic transcription system. For example, Cyrillic Е is represented with a semiconsonant when it starts a syllable (ye), and with a vowel when it merely indicates iotation (ie).
— Michael Z. 06:25, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
The examples given ("Krestyansky" & "Vyuga") do not fall under "commonly accepted convention". An example of what's commonly accepted would be Gorbachev, which, if one is to follow the rules outlined in the article, would be spelled Gorbachyov. As the former, not latter, variant is in widespread usage, it is a good example of what's commonly accepted. "Krestyansky" and "vyuga" are definitely not on the same level.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:51, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Proposal to get rid of yy:
Let me know what you think. DmitryKo 21:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I knew you would ask for examples, but it was 00:02 MSC so dizzeness wasn't stranger to me either. :(
OK.
I've included some Russian geographical/personal names as well as ordinary words:
Russian | Transliteration | ||
---|---|---|---|
Existing | Proposal | Commonly accepted | |
Мари́я | Mariya | Mariya | Maria, Marya |
ья | |||
Ма́рья | Maryya | Mariya | Mar'ya |
Воробьянинов | Vorobyyaninov | Vorobiyaninov | Vorobyaninov |
Ульяновск | Ulyyanovsk | Uliyanovsk | Ulyanovsk |
Татьяна | Tatyyana | Tatiyana | Tatiana, Tatyana |
Илья | Ilyya | Iliya | Ilya |
братья | bratyya | bratiya | |
перья | peryya | periya | |
ье | |||
Ставрополье | Stavropolye | Stavropoliye | |
третье | tretye | tretiye | |
воскресенье | voskresenye | voskreseniye | |
12 стульев | 12 stulyyev | 12 stuliyev | 12 stulyev |
ью | |||
вьюга | vyyuga | viyuga | vyuga |
пятью пять | pyatyyu pyat | pyatiyu pyat | |
ьё | |||
ворьё | voryyo | voriyo | |
Соловьёв | Solovyyov | Soloviyov | Solovyov |
Sounds like Church Slavonic, isn't it? :)
There seems to be very few cases for hard sign, it's being avoided in names. Maybe it's better left where it is now.
Russian | Current | Proposal |
---|---|---|
подъезд | podyezd | pod-yezd |
съёжиться | syyozhitsya | s-yozhitsya |
съедать | syedat | s-yedat |
съюлить | syyulit | s-yulit |
DmitryKo 08:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it is a good idea to compile a list of common Russian names (like List of Arabic names and List of Japanese given names) that includes accepted transliterations and make if official. I'm just tired of debates of what is a common rendition of a name and what is not. DmitryKo 12:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The special case rules for е say that after ъ and ь it should be transliterated "ye". The rules for ъ and ь say that they should be transliterated "y" before all vowels except for е. Wouldn't it be simpler to say that ъ and ь should become "y" before ALL vowels, and then leave out the special case rules for е? It amounts to the same thing. - BeavisSanchez 09:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
should be merged with romanization
I had trouble understanding this article. Thanks for teaching us alliteration, but don't use lllaaarrrgggeee words. They complicate my brain. Thanks.
Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at
— Michael Z. 2005-12-9 20:43 Z
In the past, I've tried to rewrite the intro as an encyclopedia article, but I think I've failed. I respect the work that has been put into this, but:
This article is:
This article is not:
This should be turned into a description of transliteration standards, with a simple table. It can also describe English spelling of Russian proper names (which is not the same as transliteration; please see the example at Romanization of Ukrainian#Conventional romanization of proper names). — Michael Z. 2005-12-14 08:14 Z
-- Nixer 14:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Unicode doesn't suggest any transliteration standards, it merely documents the characters' usage. In this case, it is indicating that primes (not apostrophes or typewriter ticks) are correctly used in the Scholarly, ALA-LC, and ISO 9 transliteration systems, and possibly others. — Michael Z. 2005-12-14 20:08 Z
Actually, some transliteration systems use quotation marks and not primes (at least BGN/PCGN does). I'm being pedantically correct here—I don't think it's critically important, but it's nice to do things correctly and consistently in a good encyclopedia.
The typewriter tick-mark U+0027 ( ' ) is not a real apostrophe, just a typist's convenience character. Punctuation quotes are semantically acceptable, but Unicode offers a way to do it right. The following are semantically equivalent to their normal punctuation-mark cousins, but software is supposed to treat them like letters, so words do not break in these places. These are mentioned in the article " apostrophe".
I think the main content of this article should just refer to the correct character for a transliteration system (eg, "prime", or "double apostrophe"), and a technical appendix at the end can briefly discuss technology-dependent issues, like Unicode encoding and modifier letters vs punctuation marks. Remember, if you're using just a typewriter, then transliterating with a typewriter apostrophe isn't semantically incorrect, but in a typeset book it would be considered a poor visual substitute for a real typographic prime mark or apostrophe. Likewise, in a web page, a typewriter apostrophe is not incorrect, but a typographic prime or apostrophe is a better representation, and a non-breaking one is better still. — Michael Z. 2005-12-15 01:10 Z
Hello. I keep discovering acute accents placed systematically above the letter immediately after the stressed vowel in cyrillic script, and not that vowel itself. Often, the letter following the stressed vowel is actually a consonant, which surely leads to some confusion or amusement with the readers. Please participate in this discussion — as yet, only my humble opinion has been voiced). // Big Adamsky 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
New article: scientific transliteration. — Michael Z. 2006-02-07 06:04 Z
Is the UN system based on GOST but modified, or did the UN adopt the GOST system verbatim? Is there any reason to add a UN column to the summary table? — Michael Z. 2006-02-14 20:28 Z
I refer to the version of the article as edited on June 2006 There seems to be some confusion in the article about GOST 7.79 (2002) .... which is(?) non-existent, but GOST 7.79 (2000), as stated in the paragraph text exists. Contrary to the wiki statement, this is not an adoption of the ISO 9 - 1995. ISO 9 transliteration is a 1:1 mapping of Cyrillic characters to the Latin letters of the Unicode set + some combinations with diacrtitcs. I refrain from editing, as there may be some further fine points I am unaware of. MGTom 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
GOST standarts can be found at GOST 7.79-2000 (in russian). Its purpose is an unambiguous transliteration of Cyrillic script by Latin alphabet and a possibility of reconstruction original cyrillic text, particularly for transmission via computer networks. This rules do not apply to a phonetic romanization. I'm going to bring to accordance this article. GreLI 10:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It's look like there are some errors in ISO representation in table. GreLI 10:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yours truly, Ludvikus 04:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
(from Švitrigaila's talk page)
Please don't edit-war over major changes to articles when other editors disagree with you. The previous version of the table had the support of editors' consensus, since it has been stable for a long time. What you are proposing is a major change, so please describe and justify it on the talk page. — Michael Z. 2006-11-01 16:55 Z
I'm sorry to have not found the time to read that before. Finally I think you're right and maybe... maybe... I was wrong. All I wanted was to improve the table on Romanization of Russian. I had no intention to improve that on Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. I even didn't know this page did exist. But I still think little improvements can be done on Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. First of all, I think my formulation :
Russian spelling |
English transliteration |
Special provision | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
–ый endings | -yy | None | Красный = Krasnyy |
-y | Most commonly in transcriptions of proper names. | Новотный = Novotny | |
–ий endings | -iy | None | Синий = Siniy |
-i | Most commonly in transcriptions of proper names. | Юрий = Yuri | |
-y | Most commonly in transcriptions of family names or adjectives ending in -кий. | Михайловский = Mikhaylovsky |
is better than the present one:
Russian spelling |
English transliteration |
Special provision | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
–ый endings | -y | Красный = Krasny | |
–ий endings | -iy or -y | Синий = Siniy, Siny; Великий = Velikiy, Veliky |
As for what I wrote about ё after a ж, ш, щ or ч. I simply watched the article Shcholkovskaya. Švitrigaila 13:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding a link to Russian transliteration service at http://www.latkey.com/translit to the main article. It matches wiki guidelines as it's free and dosen't contain any advertising content. Some of the links do contain Google AdSense advertising content however, so review of those links suggested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanIssa ( talk • contribs) .
I'd like to propose my own system of romanisation. First of all, I've noticed that everybody uses 'y' for both 'ы' and 'й'. The easiest solution is to use 'j' for 'й'. It preserves the correct orthography, and clears up confusion. Example: русский = russkij. It makes everything 100 times easier. Plural adjectives for example: большые - bol'shyje. Otherwise it'd be bol'shye or bol'shyye, which is a complete mess. Here's how I always do it:
I've noticed some people arguing that transliteration doesn't mean preservation of orthography and that we should transliterate phonetically, but that argument is utterly pointless, in my opinion. If you want phoneticism, we have the IPA. A good transliteration should be able to transliterate back to the original script correctly.
Here's the difference between romanised Russian (my way) and anglicised Russian (the common way): Moskva - Moscow; Russkij - Russky; bliny - blinis; tsar' - czar; Tat'jana - Tatiana; do svidanija - dasvidanya; Rossija - Russia; Smirnov - Smirnoff.
Ladno, tovarishchi, ja poshjel spat'. Zhjena zlaja. 67.186.247.125 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is My Cyrillic Romanization System. I made it Seem Slavic because all these letters are Slavic. Can anyone speak Russian Here? Unfortunately,I can't speak Russian. Russian is called Russkij Jazyk in Romanized Russian. In Cyrillic, It's called Русский Яазык.
Does anyone agree with my Romanization system? This Romanization is From [User:CDHgrün] on September 15, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDHgrün ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I found a couple of Russian-language references which may be useful (PDF files).
— Michael Z. 2007-07-04 04:15 Z
What about accents?
As in "Колмогóров" goes to "Kolmogorov" versus "Kolmogórov", say?? —DIV (
128.250.204.118 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC))
There seems (to me) to be an annoying contradiction between the blurb describing GOST 16876 (1971).
... GOST 16876-71 has been in service for over 30 years and is the only romanization system that does not use diacritics.
and the comparison table's line regarding the character Э. (The line for that letter seems to show an accent even in the GOST 16876-71 column.) Personally, I'm a neophyte to romanization of Russian, so I've no idea which is correct, but I wanted to bring this to the attention of others who may know. Psaux ( talk) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
When used to denote the old reduced vowels (as in OCS or ORus pre-12 c.), ъ = ŭ; ь = ĭ by the usual convention. The table does not show this. 70.74.14.67 ( talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What is this article section, and why is it in this article?
I don't believe there is a source for the pronunciation of romanized Russian, in English. To extrapolate Russian phonology, through romanization of Russian, into English is pure original research. If no one can provide a reference, then I will remove this section. — Michael Z. 2008-11-10 03:58 z
Discussion on Russian-English Transliteration, by W. W. Cobbett, M. Montagu-Nathan, S. W. Pring, E. J. Dent, A. H. Fox Strangways and John H. Reynolds. Can be viewed here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/908300. The source argues about the choice of "kh" to render Russian letter "х", which causes Anglophones to pronounce it as /k/. -- Atitarev ( talk) 11:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The table heading GOST 1971 has notes with a heading GOST 7.79-2000. Which is correct? — Michael Z. 2008-12-28 04:55 z
"ye and yë are used to indicate iotation word-initially and after a vowel, й, ъ, or ь." — Maybe "й" is a mistake here? I can't imagine "Йемен" to be romanized as "Yyemen" — Hellerick ( talk) 04:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the picture of Sergei Gonchar, I found it on his Wiki page. I felt it was a good illustration of the concept, and broke up a very text heavy document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.18.72 ( talk) 06:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Аа Бб Вв Гг Дд Ее Ёё Жж Зз Ии Йй Кк Лл Мм Нн Оо Пп Рр Сс Тт Уу Фф Хх Цц Чч Шш Щщ Ъъ Ыы Ьь Ээ Юю Яя
Aa Bb Vv Gg Dd Ee E'e' Z'z' Zz Ii Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn Oo Pp Rr Ss Tt Uu Ff Hh Cc C'c' S's' S`s` J`j` Yy J'j' E`e` U'u' A'a'
For Ukrainian:
Ґґ Єє Ии Іі Її G'g' E´e´ Yy Ii I'i'
For Belorussian:
Ўў U'u' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 ( talk) 10:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if this article told me whether any or none of these systems of Romanization is uniquely decodable, i.e. allows the Cyrillic text to be recovered unambiguously (without any knowledge of the language). From the table it's clear that some of the systems are ambiguous (e.g. do not distinguish тс from ц), so I'd guess the answer is none; would anybody like to make a definite statement on the matter? -- catslash ( talk) 12:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The British Standard B.S. 2979: 1958 has tables for back transliteration for both the “British” system and the “International” system (which is the same as ISO/R9: 1954). — Michael Z. 2013-12-12 19:50 z
Dear Wikipedians, this article is really about the Romanisation of Russian for mostly English-speaking people. The equivalent articles in French and German (for example) show examples of Romanisation not covered by the table of apparently "common systems". I would say this is because they are common systems for Romanising in English and not in general. The title should reflect that, or the article be greatly expanded to inlcude Romanisation in other languages. (iPhil, login details forgotten) 2A02:8109:83C0:3B:FA1E:DFFF:FEE5:F12E ( talk) 17:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The Latin script section on proposals to adopt a Roman alphabet for Russian in Russia has recently been deleted on the grounds that it was unreferenced. Given that corroborating references could have been very easily found on Google Books (search latinization of russian) this does not appear to be a valid reason for deletion. However, the section might also be challenged on the grounds of being outside the intended scope of the article (regardless of the title), and so I have refrained from reinstating it for the moment. Does anybody have an opinion on this? -- catslash ( talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems like none of the systems described here are the ones commonly used in documents English-speakers are likely to have come into contact with, such as books and periodicals. Apparently they are used in scholarly communications and trade articles. It would be nice to have some reference to whatever system(s) is/are used by (e.g.) major international press agencies like AP or Reuters. 121a0012 ( talk) 01:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Are these letters (namely іѣѳѵ) really listed in the old ISO? GOST 1971, which are claimed to be the official translation of ISO/R9:1968, does not mention them at all.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romanization of Russian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
How about adding the Wikipedia romanization of Russian, one of the most influential romanization systems, in this article (including the transliteration table)? Preferably by someone able to do it without any errors typical of us ordinary users.
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This discussion was moved from User talk:Cantus:
Hi, Cantus! I am a little stumped with what "Sibír'" means. It surely isn't a transliteration, and you do not mention what language this is in. Can you satisfy my curiosity, please? Also, why did you remove the accent mark from the Russian version?-- Ëzhiki 15:42, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
OK, now please tell me what was wrong with the Transliteration of Russian into English link that you kindly removed from the article's intro?-- Ëzhiki 22:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Will you please stop removing bits and pieces from this article? Or at least try to explain why you are doing it.-- Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:15, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm aiming for consistency here. You would have to change ALL pages with cyrilic text in it. They're all in this same format. Stop this, Ëzhiki. -- Cantus 02:59, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
I second the position of User:Ezhiki on this issue.
There is no way to imitate Russian palatalization in English. Similar problems exist in opposite direction. E.g., in Russian, both 'v' and 'w' are rendered by Ve (Cyrillic), but no one tears his hairs off his head to invent a way to distinguish them despite the fact that 'v' and 'w' sometimes bring semantic diference not less important than "Р" vs. "РЬ" (e.g., cover<-> cower).
My suggestion is to forget the apostrophe but for certain "special" cases, such as Rus' goremychnaya. Mikkalai 03:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is Library of Congress Slavic Transliteration and three other commonly used ones. I am wondering why no one took troubles to report these here.
My brief search shows it is common to use prime for soft sign and double prime for hard sign.
Mikkalai 21:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am wondering why this discussion is here and not at the Transliteration of Russian into English page. I am copying it there. Mikkalai 21:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IMO LOC did not very good job for Cyrillic. E.g., they suggest to use prime for soft sign in Belarussian language, obviously oblivious to the fact that it is already in use. Furthermore, we cannot use their way for hard sign, because two primes are of special meaning in wikipedia (we could have used the double quote mark, but this way lead to the same objections that were taken by LOC into an account). Not to say that LOC makes use of diacritics two letter wide. I guess, the initial design was for pencil marks on books bought for the library abroad. Mikkalai 22:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
First of all, thanks to Mikkalai for his initial proposal to compile this article and for his eventual return to its discussion. I also believe that this article should cover all of the existing transliteration systems, and give arecommendation as to which one of them should preferrably be used across the Wikipedia. I just never got to adding that information as I keep being distracted by other projects. Or well, no one ever said it's gonna be easy...
Now, to the point. Here are the problems with the existing system that are pretty much obvious:
I'll try to go through them one by one.
Hard/soft signs. I tend to agree with Mikkalai that these signs should not be included in the transliterated variant (and, Cantus, yes, I do of course know the apostrophes are used in several systems, you just needed to look at this article more closely—you would see they are there), except when they are absolutely crucial for the meaning of the word (I can't think of any example, though), or when they have conventionally been used (no example, again), or when they help clarify an issue (e.g., Rus'). The article currently suggests using letter "y" when soft/hard sign is followed by a letter other than "е", but that definitely needs reworking ("Podyyarsky" for "Подъярский" looks pretty unwieldy and counter-intuitive, even though "Ilyinsky" for "Ильинский" is probably fine). This is one area where suggestions are very welcome.
"-Ый/-ий" endings.
More thought should be put into this entry. Let me start from the remark that 'siny' for 'синий' is baaad. I suggest ий -> iy and ый -> yi unless it is in proper names with a tradition of spelling.
Mikkalai 22:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I still am curious why "siny" for "синий" looks bad (even though I don't necessarily disagree with this notion). Maybe it's because the word is too short? "Sinenky" for "синенький" doesn't look as bad, does it? Anyway, this can be improved, but I am strongly against using "-iy" for "-ий" and "-yi" for "-ый". This, to me, would overly complicate an already convoluted system—you would have to explain why "й" should be transliterated as "y" in one case and as "i" in another. My counterproposal would be to leave "-ый" alone (i.e., use "y"), and use simple "i" for "-ий" (i.e, "синий" will become "sini"). This will at least add more consistency to the system, although it is still not as simple as I'd like it to be. It is also worth mentioning that not all "-ий" endings are created equal. Adjectives are one thing (here goes "siny/sini/siniy" again), but nouns can also have this ending (e.g., "Vo dvore on posadil paru akatsiy"). I'd think this one has to be an "-iy", no matter what we decide on the adjectives, but if I am overlooking something, please let me know.
Letter ё. Russian Wikipedia made the use of this letter mandatory in Russian texts (so no more "полет"s where a "полёт" should be). One can argue about it a lot (and they do), but to me this is a very good practice which clarifies a lot of proper names, when it is entirely non-obvious which of the two letters should be used (Краснозна́менск or Краснознамёнск? I still don't know!). From the transliteration standpoint, using "yo" for "ё" makes more sense than using either "ë" or "yë", because "yo" would be in the same row as "ya" and "yu".
"Ы" vs. "й". Currently the article proposes using "y" for both of these letters. Not good. But as far as the alternatives go, they are not any better. "J" for "й" seems good until people start pronouncing it as "j" in "jam"—this is a good variant for languages that don't use "j" as a dyphthong, though. Not true for English. Using "y" for the soft/hard signs in some cases does not help getting rid of the confusion either. I've been thinking of this problem quite a lot, but I still don't seem to come up with a good solution, so any comments would be very welcome. Otherwise, we'd have to go with the flow, which is a shame for intelligent people who contribute to this fine encyclopedia. -- Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:24, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I would have suggested keeping the SAMPA. However, do what you like, it makes no difference. Just stay away from the international-slavicist transliteration with the haceks and what not: it's more phonemic, rather than phonetic. But it makes no real difference. Just one last suggestion: if a rabid nationalist appears, RUN. A. Shetsen 06:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just FUI: in Unicode
Mikkalai 03:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thought someone might find this useful:
static function Russ2Asc ($str) { $str = preg_replace('/(?<!Б|б|В|в|Г|г|Д|д|Ж|ж|З|з|Й|й|К|к|Л|л|М|м|Н|н|П|п|Р|р|С|с|Т|т|Ф|ф|Х|х|Ц|ц|Ч|ч|Ш|ш|Щ|щ)(Е|е)/','ye',$str); $str = preg_replace('/(ъ|ь)(?=(А|а|О|о|У|у|Ы|ы|Э|э|Я|я|Ё|ё|Ю|ю|И|и))/','y',$str); $str = preg_replace('/(И|и|Ы|ы)(Й|й)(?=\s|\.|;|:|!|\?|\Z)/','y',$str); $str = str_replace(array('А','а'),'a',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Б','б'),'b',$str); $str = str_replace(array('В','в'),'v',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Г','г'),'g',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Д','д'),'d',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Е','е'),'e',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ё','ё'),'yo',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ж','ж'),'zh',$str); $str = str_replace(array('З','з'),'z',$str); $str = str_replace(array('И','и'),'i',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Й','й'),'y',$str); $str = str_replace(array('К','к'),'k',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Л','л'),'l',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Э','э'),'e',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ю','ю'),'yu',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Я','я'),'ya',$str); $str = str_replace(array('М','м'),'m',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Н','н'),'n',$str); $str = str_replace(array('О','о'),'o',$str); $str = str_replace(array('П','п'),'p',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Р','р'),'r',$str); $str = str_replace(array('С','с'),'s',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Т','т'),'t',$str); $str = str_replace(array('У','у'),'u',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ф','ф'),'f',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Х','х'),'kh',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ц','ц'),'ts',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ч','ч'),'ch',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ш','ш'),'sh',$str); $str = str_replace(array('Щ','щ'),'shch',$str); $str = str_replace(array('ъ','ь'),"",$str); $str = str_replace(array('Ы','ы'),'y',$str); return $str; }
Note that it doesn't take into account any special cases, names etc. porge 06:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
I'm rewriting the heading and intro of this section to comply with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. What's described here isn't really transliteration. It's an attempt to codify the gamut of informal phonetic transcriptions; that's why so many exceptions and special cases are required.
It may be possible to simplify the rules if it's treated as a phonetic or phonemic transcription system. For example, Cyrillic Е is represented with a semiconsonant when it starts a syllable (ye), and with a vowel when it merely indicates iotation (ie).
— Michael Z. 06:25, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
The examples given ("Krestyansky" & "Vyuga") do not fall under "commonly accepted convention". An example of what's commonly accepted would be Gorbachev, which, if one is to follow the rules outlined in the article, would be spelled Gorbachyov. As the former, not latter, variant is in widespread usage, it is a good example of what's commonly accepted. "Krestyansky" and "vyuga" are definitely not on the same level.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:51, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Proposal to get rid of yy:
Let me know what you think. DmitryKo 21:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I knew you would ask for examples, but it was 00:02 MSC so dizzeness wasn't stranger to me either. :(
OK.
I've included some Russian geographical/personal names as well as ordinary words:
Russian | Transliteration | ||
---|---|---|---|
Existing | Proposal | Commonly accepted | |
Мари́я | Mariya | Mariya | Maria, Marya |
ья | |||
Ма́рья | Maryya | Mariya | Mar'ya |
Воробьянинов | Vorobyyaninov | Vorobiyaninov | Vorobyaninov |
Ульяновск | Ulyyanovsk | Uliyanovsk | Ulyanovsk |
Татьяна | Tatyyana | Tatiyana | Tatiana, Tatyana |
Илья | Ilyya | Iliya | Ilya |
братья | bratyya | bratiya | |
перья | peryya | periya | |
ье | |||
Ставрополье | Stavropolye | Stavropoliye | |
третье | tretye | tretiye | |
воскресенье | voskresenye | voskreseniye | |
12 стульев | 12 stulyyev | 12 stuliyev | 12 stulyev |
ью | |||
вьюга | vyyuga | viyuga | vyuga |
пятью пять | pyatyyu pyat | pyatiyu pyat | |
ьё | |||
ворьё | voryyo | voriyo | |
Соловьёв | Solovyyov | Soloviyov | Solovyov |
Sounds like Church Slavonic, isn't it? :)
There seems to be very few cases for hard sign, it's being avoided in names. Maybe it's better left where it is now.
Russian | Current | Proposal |
---|---|---|
подъезд | podyezd | pod-yezd |
съёжиться | syyozhitsya | s-yozhitsya |
съедать | syedat | s-yedat |
съюлить | syyulit | s-yulit |
DmitryKo 08:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it is a good idea to compile a list of common Russian names (like List of Arabic names and List of Japanese given names) that includes accepted transliterations and make if official. I'm just tired of debates of what is a common rendition of a name and what is not. DmitryKo 12:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The special case rules for е say that after ъ and ь it should be transliterated "ye". The rules for ъ and ь say that they should be transliterated "y" before all vowels except for е. Wouldn't it be simpler to say that ъ and ь should become "y" before ALL vowels, and then leave out the special case rules for е? It amounts to the same thing. - BeavisSanchez 09:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
should be merged with romanization
I had trouble understanding this article. Thanks for teaching us alliteration, but don't use lllaaarrrgggeee words. They complicate my brain. Thanks.
Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at
— Michael Z. 2005-12-9 20:43 Z
In the past, I've tried to rewrite the intro as an encyclopedia article, but I think I've failed. I respect the work that has been put into this, but:
This article is:
This article is not:
This should be turned into a description of transliteration standards, with a simple table. It can also describe English spelling of Russian proper names (which is not the same as transliteration; please see the example at Romanization of Ukrainian#Conventional romanization of proper names). — Michael Z. 2005-12-14 08:14 Z
-- Nixer 14:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Unicode doesn't suggest any transliteration standards, it merely documents the characters' usage. In this case, it is indicating that primes (not apostrophes or typewriter ticks) are correctly used in the Scholarly, ALA-LC, and ISO 9 transliteration systems, and possibly others. — Michael Z. 2005-12-14 20:08 Z
Actually, some transliteration systems use quotation marks and not primes (at least BGN/PCGN does). I'm being pedantically correct here—I don't think it's critically important, but it's nice to do things correctly and consistently in a good encyclopedia.
The typewriter tick-mark U+0027 ( ' ) is not a real apostrophe, just a typist's convenience character. Punctuation quotes are semantically acceptable, but Unicode offers a way to do it right. The following are semantically equivalent to their normal punctuation-mark cousins, but software is supposed to treat them like letters, so words do not break in these places. These are mentioned in the article " apostrophe".
I think the main content of this article should just refer to the correct character for a transliteration system (eg, "prime", or "double apostrophe"), and a technical appendix at the end can briefly discuss technology-dependent issues, like Unicode encoding and modifier letters vs punctuation marks. Remember, if you're using just a typewriter, then transliterating with a typewriter apostrophe isn't semantically incorrect, but in a typeset book it would be considered a poor visual substitute for a real typographic prime mark or apostrophe. Likewise, in a web page, a typewriter apostrophe is not incorrect, but a typographic prime or apostrophe is a better representation, and a non-breaking one is better still. — Michael Z. 2005-12-15 01:10 Z
Hello. I keep discovering acute accents placed systematically above the letter immediately after the stressed vowel in cyrillic script, and not that vowel itself. Often, the letter following the stressed vowel is actually a consonant, which surely leads to some confusion or amusement with the readers. Please participate in this discussion — as yet, only my humble opinion has been voiced). // Big Adamsky 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
New article: scientific transliteration. — Michael Z. 2006-02-07 06:04 Z
Is the UN system based on GOST but modified, or did the UN adopt the GOST system verbatim? Is there any reason to add a UN column to the summary table? — Michael Z. 2006-02-14 20:28 Z
I refer to the version of the article as edited on June 2006 There seems to be some confusion in the article about GOST 7.79 (2002) .... which is(?) non-existent, but GOST 7.79 (2000), as stated in the paragraph text exists. Contrary to the wiki statement, this is not an adoption of the ISO 9 - 1995. ISO 9 transliteration is a 1:1 mapping of Cyrillic characters to the Latin letters of the Unicode set + some combinations with diacrtitcs. I refrain from editing, as there may be some further fine points I am unaware of. MGTom 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
GOST standarts can be found at GOST 7.79-2000 (in russian). Its purpose is an unambiguous transliteration of Cyrillic script by Latin alphabet and a possibility of reconstruction original cyrillic text, particularly for transmission via computer networks. This rules do not apply to a phonetic romanization. I'm going to bring to accordance this article. GreLI 10:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It's look like there are some errors in ISO representation in table. GreLI 10:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yours truly, Ludvikus 04:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
(from Švitrigaila's talk page)
Please don't edit-war over major changes to articles when other editors disagree with you. The previous version of the table had the support of editors' consensus, since it has been stable for a long time. What you are proposing is a major change, so please describe and justify it on the talk page. — Michael Z. 2006-11-01 16:55 Z
I'm sorry to have not found the time to read that before. Finally I think you're right and maybe... maybe... I was wrong. All I wanted was to improve the table on Romanization of Russian. I had no intention to improve that on Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. I even didn't know this page did exist. But I still think little improvements can be done on Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. First of all, I think my formulation :
Russian spelling |
English transliteration |
Special provision | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
–ый endings | -yy | None | Красный = Krasnyy |
-y | Most commonly in transcriptions of proper names. | Новотный = Novotny | |
–ий endings | -iy | None | Синий = Siniy |
-i | Most commonly in transcriptions of proper names. | Юрий = Yuri | |
-y | Most commonly in transcriptions of family names or adjectives ending in -кий. | Михайловский = Mikhaylovsky |
is better than the present one:
Russian spelling |
English transliteration |
Special provision | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
–ый endings | -y | Красный = Krasny | |
–ий endings | -iy or -y | Синий = Siniy, Siny; Великий = Velikiy, Veliky |
As for what I wrote about ё after a ж, ш, щ or ч. I simply watched the article Shcholkovskaya. Švitrigaila 13:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding a link to Russian transliteration service at http://www.latkey.com/translit to the main article. It matches wiki guidelines as it's free and dosen't contain any advertising content. Some of the links do contain Google AdSense advertising content however, so review of those links suggested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanIssa ( talk • contribs) .
I'd like to propose my own system of romanisation. First of all, I've noticed that everybody uses 'y' for both 'ы' and 'й'. The easiest solution is to use 'j' for 'й'. It preserves the correct orthography, and clears up confusion. Example: русский = russkij. It makes everything 100 times easier. Plural adjectives for example: большые - bol'shyje. Otherwise it'd be bol'shye or bol'shyye, which is a complete mess. Here's how I always do it:
I've noticed some people arguing that transliteration doesn't mean preservation of orthography and that we should transliterate phonetically, but that argument is utterly pointless, in my opinion. If you want phoneticism, we have the IPA. A good transliteration should be able to transliterate back to the original script correctly.
Here's the difference between romanised Russian (my way) and anglicised Russian (the common way): Moskva - Moscow; Russkij - Russky; bliny - blinis; tsar' - czar; Tat'jana - Tatiana; do svidanija - dasvidanya; Rossija - Russia; Smirnov - Smirnoff.
Ladno, tovarishchi, ja poshjel spat'. Zhjena zlaja. 67.186.247.125 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is My Cyrillic Romanization System. I made it Seem Slavic because all these letters are Slavic. Can anyone speak Russian Here? Unfortunately,I can't speak Russian. Russian is called Russkij Jazyk in Romanized Russian. In Cyrillic, It's called Русский Яазык.
Does anyone agree with my Romanization system? This Romanization is From [User:CDHgrün] on September 15, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDHgrün ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I found a couple of Russian-language references which may be useful (PDF files).
— Michael Z. 2007-07-04 04:15 Z
What about accents?
As in "Колмогóров" goes to "Kolmogorov" versus "Kolmogórov", say?? —DIV (
128.250.204.118 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC))
There seems (to me) to be an annoying contradiction between the blurb describing GOST 16876 (1971).
... GOST 16876-71 has been in service for over 30 years and is the only romanization system that does not use diacritics.
and the comparison table's line regarding the character Э. (The line for that letter seems to show an accent even in the GOST 16876-71 column.) Personally, I'm a neophyte to romanization of Russian, so I've no idea which is correct, but I wanted to bring this to the attention of others who may know. Psaux ( talk) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
When used to denote the old reduced vowels (as in OCS or ORus pre-12 c.), ъ = ŭ; ь = ĭ by the usual convention. The table does not show this. 70.74.14.67 ( talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What is this article section, and why is it in this article?
I don't believe there is a source for the pronunciation of romanized Russian, in English. To extrapolate Russian phonology, through romanization of Russian, into English is pure original research. If no one can provide a reference, then I will remove this section. — Michael Z. 2008-11-10 03:58 z
Discussion on Russian-English Transliteration, by W. W. Cobbett, M. Montagu-Nathan, S. W. Pring, E. J. Dent, A. H. Fox Strangways and John H. Reynolds. Can be viewed here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/908300. The source argues about the choice of "kh" to render Russian letter "х", which causes Anglophones to pronounce it as /k/. -- Atitarev ( talk) 11:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The table heading GOST 1971 has notes with a heading GOST 7.79-2000. Which is correct? — Michael Z. 2008-12-28 04:55 z
"ye and yë are used to indicate iotation word-initially and after a vowel, й, ъ, or ь." — Maybe "й" is a mistake here? I can't imagine "Йемен" to be romanized as "Yyemen" — Hellerick ( talk) 04:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the picture of Sergei Gonchar, I found it on his Wiki page. I felt it was a good illustration of the concept, and broke up a very text heavy document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.18.72 ( talk) 06:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Аа Бб Вв Гг Дд Ее Ёё Жж Зз Ии Йй Кк Лл Мм Нн Оо Пп Рр Сс Тт Уу Фф Хх Цц Чч Шш Щщ Ъъ Ыы Ьь Ээ Юю Яя
Aa Bb Vv Gg Dd Ee E'e' Z'z' Zz Ii Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn Oo Pp Rr Ss Tt Uu Ff Hh Cc C'c' S's' S`s` J`j` Yy J'j' E`e` U'u' A'a'
For Ukrainian:
Ґґ Єє Ии Іі Її G'g' E´e´ Yy Ii I'i'
For Belorussian:
Ўў U'u' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 ( talk) 10:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if this article told me whether any or none of these systems of Romanization is uniquely decodable, i.e. allows the Cyrillic text to be recovered unambiguously (without any knowledge of the language). From the table it's clear that some of the systems are ambiguous (e.g. do not distinguish тс from ц), so I'd guess the answer is none; would anybody like to make a definite statement on the matter? -- catslash ( talk) 12:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The British Standard B.S. 2979: 1958 has tables for back transliteration for both the “British” system and the “International” system (which is the same as ISO/R9: 1954). — Michael Z. 2013-12-12 19:50 z
Dear Wikipedians, this article is really about the Romanisation of Russian for mostly English-speaking people. The equivalent articles in French and German (for example) show examples of Romanisation not covered by the table of apparently "common systems". I would say this is because they are common systems for Romanising in English and not in general. The title should reflect that, or the article be greatly expanded to inlcude Romanisation in other languages. (iPhil, login details forgotten) 2A02:8109:83C0:3B:FA1E:DFFF:FEE5:F12E ( talk) 17:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The Latin script section on proposals to adopt a Roman alphabet for Russian in Russia has recently been deleted on the grounds that it was unreferenced. Given that corroborating references could have been very easily found on Google Books (search latinization of russian) this does not appear to be a valid reason for deletion. However, the section might also be challenged on the grounds of being outside the intended scope of the article (regardless of the title), and so I have refrained from reinstating it for the moment. Does anybody have an opinion on this? -- catslash ( talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems like none of the systems described here are the ones commonly used in documents English-speakers are likely to have come into contact with, such as books and periodicals. Apparently they are used in scholarly communications and trade articles. It would be nice to have some reference to whatever system(s) is/are used by (e.g.) major international press agencies like AP or Reuters. 121a0012 ( talk) 01:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Are these letters (namely іѣѳѵ) really listed in the old ISO? GOST 1971, which are claimed to be the official translation of ISO/R9:1968, does not mention them at all.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romanization of Russian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
How about adding the Wikipedia romanization of Russian, one of the most influential romanization systems, in this article (including the transliteration table)? Preferably by someone able to do it without any errors typical of us ordinary users.